For decades, in the aerospace and energy sectors, material selection was almost automatic: metal represented the most reliable solution to ensure strength, safety, and durability in extreme operating environments. This choice was not ideological, but engineering-driven.

Today, however, something is changing. Not because metal has lost its value, but because the industrial context has become more complex. Requirements related to efficiency, production flexibility, and life-cycle optimization are leading designers and technical decision-makers to reassess available options, adopting a more analytical and less traditional approach.

The limitations of metal emerge across the component life cycle

When a solution is evaluated exclusively from a structural perspective, metal continues to offer clear advantages. However, when the analysis is extended to the entire component life cycle, limitations become increasingly difficult to ignore.

The first is weight. In aerospace applications, every kilogram has a direct impact on fuel consumption and efficiency. In the energy sector, weight affects installation, handling, and logistics costs, especially in complex or hard-to-access facilities.

Then there is the issue of corrosion. Chemically aggressive environments, humidity, repeated thermal cycles, and contaminants accelerate the degradation of metallic materials. This results in the need for surface treatments, periodic inspections, and preventive replacements, with a direct impact on maintenance activities and MRO costs.

Another critical factor is lead time. Dependence on specific alloys, complex machining processes, and global supply chains often makes it difficult to respond quickly to demand fluctuations or unexpected operational requirements.

Finally, MRO complexity. Many metal components are designed to be robust, but not necessarily to simplify inspection, functional integration, or assembly. The result is an increase in indirect costs over time, often underestimated during the design phase.

Why high-performance polymers enter the discussion

It is within this context that high-performance polymers, such as PEEK and Carbon PEEK, are increasingly being considered. Not as universal replacements for metal, but as targeted alternatives for specific applications.

Reference organizations such as SAE Aerospace and ASTM International have been studying the behavior of these materials in critical environments for years, defining standards and guidelines for their use in industrial applications.

What emerges is a consistent performance profile and, above all, predictable behavior, provided that the material is correctly selected and processed.

The properties that make the difference

One of the key strengths of PEEK and its reinforced variants is thermal resistance. These materials maintain mechanical stability even at elevated temperatures, compatible with many aerospace and energy applications. This reduces the risk of deformation and ensures operational continuity over time.

Another crucial aspect is dimensional stability. In functional components, where tolerances and fits are critical, predictable behavior under load and during thermal variations represents a tangible advantage over metal solutions that are more sensitive to thermal expansion and distortion.

Finally, chemical resistance. High-performance polymers exhibit high chemical inertness toward fuels, oils, solvents, and aggressive agents. This results in reduced material degradation, elimination of protective coatings, and a decrease in corrective maintenance interventions.

When metal replacement truly makes sense

The key question is not whether a polymer can replace metal, but under which operating conditions this choice becomes technically and economically justified.

In the white paper “When Metal Replacement Makes Sense”, Roboze addresses this topic starting from a clear premise: metal replacement is not a material choice, but a design choice.

The document analyzes scenarios in which structural, thermal, dimensional, or operational limitations of metals begin to generate hidden costs across the component life cycle, in terms of maintenance, dimensional instability, additional treatments, or reduced reliability, and proposes a method for evaluating technically more suitable alternatives for the specific application context.

Only within this decision-making framework does the paper further explore the role of high-performance polymers and the manufacturing technologies best suited to leverage their properties, going beyond a simple comparison of mechanical strength.

Download the white paper “When Metal Replacement Makes Sense” to explore criteria, data, and application cases that support material selection in high-criticality applications.

A paradigm shift, not a material change

Aerospace and energy are not abandoning metal. They are evolving the way materials are selected. Design no longer starts from tradition, but from the actual function of the component, the operating conditions, and the total cost across the entire life cycle.

In this scenario, high-performance polymers are not a shortcut, but an additional engineering tool. The real change is not in the material itself, but in the decision-making process that guides its selection.

The Roboze technical team supports designers and industrial decision-makers in feasibility analyses, helping evaluate the most suitable material based on the application, the operating environment, and the component life cycle.

Contact our experts for a dedicated technical assessment and to determine whether metal replacement makes sense for your specific case.